See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45109365

Measuring work-life balance:

Validation of a new measure across
five Anglo and Asian samples

Article · January 2009

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

2 2,360

3 authors, including:

Paula Brough Carolyn Timms

Griffith University James Cook University
150 PUBLICATIONS 1,780 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 240 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carolyn Timms on 21 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This art icle was downloaded by: [ JAMES COOK UNI VERSI TY]
On: 02 April 2014, At : 17: 36
Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of Human

Resource Management
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and
subscript ion inf ormat ion:
ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rij h20

Work–life balance: a longitudinal

evaluation of a new measure across
Australia and New Zealand workers
a b c
Paula Brough , Carolyn Timms , Michael P. O'Driscoll , Thomas
de de f g
Kalliat h , Oi-Ling Siu , Cindy Sit & Danny Lo
a
School of Applied Psychology, Grif f it h Universit y, Brisbane,
Aust ralia
b
Depart ment of Psychology, James Cook Universit y, Aust ralia
c
Depart ment of Psychology, Universit y of Waikat o, New Zealand
d
Research School of Management , Aust ralian Nat ional Universit y,
Canberra, Aust ralia
e
Depart ment of Applied Psychology, Lingnan Universit y, Hong
Kong
f
Depart ment of Sport s Science and Physical Educat ion, Chinese
Universit y of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
g
Int ernat ional Business School, Xi'an Jiaot ong-Liverpool
Universit y, China
Published online: 31 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Paula Brough, Carolyn Timms, Michael P. O'Driscoll, Thomas Kalliat h, Oi-
Ling Siu, Cindy Sit & Danny Lo (2014): Work–lif e balance: a longit udinal evaluat ion of a new
measure across Aust ralia and New Zealand workers, The Int ernat ional Journal of Human Resource
Management , DOI: 10. 1080/ 09585192. 2014. 899262

To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585192. 2014. 899262

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he
“ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis,
our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o
t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions
and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors,
and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent
 should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources
of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s,
proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever
or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or
arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent .

This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s &
Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s-
and- condit ions
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262

Work– life balance: a longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across

Australia and New Zealand workers
Paula Brougha*, Carolyn Timmsb, Michael P. O’Driscollc, Thomas Kalliathd,
Oi-Ling Siue, Cindy Sitf and Danny Log
a
School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia; bDepartment of Psychology,
James Cook University, Australia; cDepartment of Psychology, University of Waikato, New
Zealand; dResearch School of Management, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia;
e
Department of Applied Psychology, Lingnan University, Hong Kong; fDepartment of Sports Science
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

and Physical Education, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; gInternational Business
School, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China
The work– life balance literature has recently identified the need for construct
refinement. In response to these discussions, this research describes the development
and validation of a concise measure of work– life balance, based on individuals’
subjective perceptions of balance between their work and other aspects of their lives.
The structure, reliability and validity of this unidimensional, four-item measure was
confirmed in four independent heterogeneous samples of workers employed in
Australia and New Zealand (N ¼ 6983). Work – life balance was negatively associated
with work demands, turnover intentions and psychological strain, and positively
associated with both family and job satisfaction, confirming the research hypotheses.
Evidence of these relationships over time was also demonstrated. This research
confirms that this new measure of work– life balance demonstrates robust psychometric
properties and predicts relevant criterion variables.
Keywords: longitudinal; psychological strain; structural equation modelling; turnover;
work demands; work– life balance

Introduction
The accurate evaluation of individual health and performance includes estimates of
multiple role demands from work and non-work domains. Organisational researchers
assessing the impact of the psychosocial work environment upon outcomes, such as
occupational stress, employee well-being and commitment, increasingly include measures
of non-work demands within their investigations (e.g. Burke and Cooper 2008). Recently
identified methodological concerns focusing on work – life balance include appropriate
construct definition and measurement (Brough and O’Driscoll 2010; Greenhaus and Allen
2011). One important concern is the absence of a specific measure of work– life balance.
The current research provides a response to these methodological discussions and
describes the validation of a new measure of work –life balance. The measure was
comprehensively tested across multiple samples (utilising both cross-sectional and
longitudinal research designs) and assessed with commonly recognised antecedent and
criterion variables. This research also directly addresses calls for a more comprehensive
approach to organisational theory testing and knowledge advancement, via the inclusion
of non-US and non-European research samples (Tsui, Nifadkar and Ou 2007; Gelfand,
Leslie and Fehr 2008; Cadogan 2010).

*Corresponding author. Email: p.brough@griffith.edu.au

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 P. Brough et al.

Theoretical explanations of work – life balance

Research models developed from a number of theoretical perspectives describe specific
types of multiple role demands, such as strain-based, behaviour-based and time-based
demands (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985), and the specific mechanisms by which work and
non-work roles interact with one another, such as spillover, compensation, conflict and
interference (Carlson, Kacmar and Williams 2000; Greenglass 2000). Work –life balance
research models based upon an occupational stress theoretical framework are common and
include adaptations of the person –environment fit model (Edwards and Rothbard 1999),
and models based on role theory (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Frone, Russell and Cooper
1992), cognitive appraisal (Edwards and Rothbard 1999), role salience (Noor 2004) and job-
demands resources (Voydanoff 2005). Recent refinements to the theoretical explanations of
work –life balance focus on the inclusion of positive as well as negative relationships
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

between domains, largely via the recognition that multiple demands may facilitate, enrich
and/or enhance some work – life balance outcomes (e.g. Hanson, Hammer and Colton 2006;
Brough, O’Driscoll and Kalliath 2007; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson and Kacmar 2007; Odle-
Dusseau, Britt and Greene-Shortridge 2012; Ratanen, Kinnunen, Mauno and Tement 2013).
The array of theoretical models describing work –life balance includes multiple
definitions and research variables, with the identified antecedents, moderators and
consequences of work –life balance varying across the respective models. Recent reviews
of the literature have been useful in ascertaining common relationships among the key
constructs (e.g. Allen, Herst, Bruck and Sutton 2000; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux
and Brinley 2005; Brough, O’Driscoll, Kalliath, Cooper and Poelmans 2009). Evidence is
generally consistent in identifying work and family demands and responsibilities for
dependents as key antecedents of work – life balance; gender and social support as key
moderating constructs; and satisfaction, performance and levels of both physical and
psychological health as the core consequences of work– life balance.
For example, in their reviews of the literature, O’Driscoll, Brough and Biggs (2007)
and Brough et al. (2007) discussed the occurrence of both work and family demands as the
key negative antecedents of work –life balance. More specifically, the perception of
sufficient time to meet acute work and family demands is the pertinent issue (Brough,
O’Driscoll and Biggs 2009). Family demands are increased both by the volume of
dependent responsibilities (caring for children, elderly parents, serious ill spouses and
other family members) and by specific acute situations producing intense demands, such
as the birth of a new baby or sudden serious illnesses of spouses/parents/other family
members: ‘the combination of reduced time available and increased work and family
demands for many employed parents obviously creates additional role stress’ (O’Driscoll
et al. 2007, p. 196). In cases of acute family demands many employees report that where
formal leave provisions from work are available and accessible, such leave provision is
typically insufficient to adequately meet these additional family demands, thereby
increasing levels of role stress and work –life imbalance (Greenhaus and Parasuraman
2002; Boyar, Maertz, Pearson and Keough 2003; Brough, Holt, Bauld, Biggs and Ryan
2008; Brough et al. 2009; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper and Sparrow 2013).
The assessment of the key consequences of work –life balance has focused on health,
attitudinal and performance outcomes in both work and non-work (mostly family)
domains. These family and work outcomes encompass both affective conditions, such as
dissatisfaction and distress, and behavioural outcomes, such as absenteeism, lateness and
poor performance (Brough and O’Driscoll 2005). In their review, Allen et al. (2000)
described the existence of three groups of consequences of work– life balance: (1) work-
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3

related outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, turnover intentions, absenteeism and performance),
(2) non-work-related outcomes (e.g. marital, family and life satisfaction, and family
performance) and (3) stress-related outcomes (e.g. psychological strain, burnout and
substance abuse). Associations between work – life imbalance/conflict and psychological
distress have consistently identified a strong positive relationship: increased conflict is
associated with increased psychological distress (Stephens, Townsend, Martire and Druley
2001; Major, Klein and Ehrhart 2002). For example, Kelloway, Gottlieb and Barham
(1999), employing cross-lagged analyses, demonstrated that the experience of strain
predicted subsequent levels of work – life conflict. Research has also demonstrated that the
relationship between work –life balance and turnover behaviours is generally stronger
compared to the association between job satisfaction and balance (e.g. Allen et al. 2000;
Eby et al. 2005; O’Driscoll, Brough and Haar 2011). This strong association between
work –life balance and turnover behaviours is explained by the decision of employees
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

experiencing chronic imbalance to seek alternative employment with a more ‘family-

friendly’ employer (Brough et al. 2008; O’Driscoll et al. 2011).

Measuring work – life balance

Specific definitions of work– life balance vary across theoretical models and contribute to
the numerous measures employed to assess balance. Reviews (e.g. Kalliath and Brough
2008) have described at least six common definitions of work – life balance occurring
within the literature, each with their corresponding measurement instruments. It is
important to note that, while these definitions and measures of work – life balance have
been successfully applied, empirical assessments of the actual structure of the work – life
balance measures they describe are relatively scarce. This lack of empirical scrutiny has
been widely acknowledged (e.g. Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw 2003; Kalliath and Brough
2008; Gatrell et al. 2013). A common definition of work– life balance, for example,
describes it as a relationship between work/family conflict and work/family facilitation.
This definition suggests that balance comprises two individual pathways of conflict
(negative pathway) and facilitation (positive pathway), which interact in specific ways to
produce balance (e.g. Frone 2003; Grzywacz and Bass 2003). Presumably, this definition
considers that work –life balance is a second-order factor composed of the conflict and
facilitation (first-order) factors, although this structure is rarely explicitly tested.
Greenhaus et al. (2003) described a measure of work– family balance based on three
specific components: time balance (equal time between work and family roles),
involvement balance (equal psychological involvement in work and family roles) and
satisfaction balance (equal satisfaction with work and family roles). This study was
instrumental in distinguishing the concept of ‘balance’ from work –family conflict and/or
facilitation: ‘that individuals can – and should – demonstrate equally positive
commitments to different life roles; that is, they should hold a balanced orientation to
multiple roles’ (p. 512). However, Greenhaus et al.’s (2003) definition of balance as
consisting of objectively equal components of time, involvement and satisfaction between
multiple roles has been questioned (e.g. Kalliath and Brough 2008). It is feasible, for
example, that a highly engaged employee may work long hours and have fewer hours
available for their non-work activities, but perceive no adverse consequences of their
‘unequal’ roles. That is, they may still perceive their life to be ‘balanced’ because they
enjoy their work, choose to work long hours and also enjoy their (smaller proportion of
time spent on) non-work activities. Greenhaus et al.’s (2003) definition of balance also
does not account for individuals who choose to work part-time in order to meet their
 4 P. Brough et al.

non-work commitments (e.g. family, sports, study). Such part-time workers may also
perceive they have an effective balance between their multiple roles, despite the unequal
time allocated to each role. It has been suggested that an effective definition of work – life
balance should, therefore, also consider the salience of a role to each individual (Brough
et al. 2007; O’Driscoll et al. 2007).
It is pertinent that new measures of work – life balance based upon the conflict
perspective have recently emerged. The new measures aim to either expand the scope of
the work – life conflict/balance construct, or else reduce the number of items from existing
measures, suggesting that further refinement of the work – life balance concept is required.
Fisher, Bulger and Smith (2009) described the development of a new work/non-work
interference and enhancement four-dimensional, 17-item measure in recognition that
aspects of the non-work domain beyond family life should be included in measures of
work –life balance. Fisher et al. (2009) tested the structure of their new measure within two
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

small samples of US workers (N ¼ 540 and N ¼ 384). However, the terminology of Fisher
et al.’s (2009) items are complex (i.e. work/non-work interference and enhancement) and,
we suggest, may present some difficulties for some employee samples to fully comprehend
their meaning. Fisher et al. (2009) also only assessed this measure in cross-sectional data,
and acknowledged the requirement to adopt a longitudinal methodology to test their
hypothesised causal relationships more comprehensively.
A second measure of work –life balance was introduced by Matthews, Kath and
Barnes-Farrell (2010), who shortened Carlson et al.’s (2000) work– family conflict
measure to six items. Similar to Fisher et al. (2009), Matthews et al. (2010) also provided
evidence that their measure was structurally sound within two samples of US workers
(N ¼ 656 and N ¼ 202). Matthews et al.’s (2010) investigation had the advantage of also
including longitudinal analyses, which validated their measure against recognised work –
life balance antecedent and criterion variables. However, the sample sizes of the
longitudinal analyses were small (N ¼ 95 and N ¼ 101), restricting the scope of the
testing. A further significant limitation of Matthews et al.’s work was the
conceptualisation of work –life balance as an absence of work– life conflict; equating
work –life balance with low conflict is somewhat simplistic and provides no recognition of
the positive component of work –life balance (e.g. work –life enrichment or work – life
enhancement; e.g. Brough et al. 2007).
A third approach to conceptualising work – life balance was proposed by Carlson,
Grzywacz and Zivnuska (2009), who focused on role expectations. Carlson et al. (2009)
defined balance as a negotiation of role expectations between an individual and his/her
partner within the home and work domains. One limitation of Carlson et al.’s (2009)
instrument is the inclusion of the term ‘family’ within the measurement items, making its
use problematic for employees with no immediate family members, but who do have other
non-work commitments (e.g. study, travel, sporting or community commitments) that may
interfere with their paid employment. A similar perspective was also adopted by Valcour
(2007) in her development of a five-item measure assessing satisfaction with work –family
balance, based on the premise that balance is ‘an overall level of contentment resulting
from an assessment of one’s degree of success at meeting work and family role demands’
(p. 1512). Valcour’s measure is valuable for its recognition of both negative and positive
consequences of dual (work and family) role expectations, and also emphasises the highly
subjective nature of ‘balance’, i.e. as an individual’s perception of how well he/she is able
to ‘balance the needs of your job with the needs of your family life’ (p. 1517). Valcour
(2007) demonstrated the validity of this measure in a test with 572 US employees. Again,
the key limitations of Valcour’s (2007) study are its cross-sectional analysis, the testing of
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 5

the measure only as a dependent variable (rather than also as a predictor of established
consequences of work – life balance) and, importantly, an emphasis on family and the
associated exclusion of other potential non-family non-work commitments. Researchers
have repeatedly called for the development of an inclusive, empirically validated measure
of work –life balance that is appropriate for all workers, regardless of their marital or
family life status (e.g. Greenhaus et al. 2003; Kalliath and Brough 2008; Fisher et al. 2009).
It is apparent that the definition and measurement of work –life balance currently entail
a variety of approaches. In their review, Kalliath and Brough (2008) proposed a theoretical
definition of work– life balance drawn from the occupational stress theoretical framework.
It emphasised the importance of individuals’ subjective perceptions of balance, as opposed
to objective measures of time and/or satisfaction expended in each domain, and the
recognition that these perceptions may change over time in response to changing life
priorities (i.e. role salience). These authors also highlighted the positive pathway of
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

balance, in response to evidence that multiple life roles may facilitate and/or enhance
health and performance across domains (e.g. Hanson et al. 2006; Wayne et al. 2007).
Kalliath and Brough (2008) defined work –life balance as ‘the individual’s perception
that work and non-work activities are compatible and promote growth in accordance with
an individual’s current life priorities’ (p. 326), although no empirical evidence testing this
conceptualisation of work – life balance was provided. Kalliath and Brough (2008) also
suggested that the assessment of work –life balance should include question items asking
directly about ‘balance’, primary because the term ‘work – life balance’ has an increased
validity for research participants in comparison to other terms such as ‘conflict’,
‘interference’ or ‘facilitation’. It was suggested that one method to increase research
survey participation by both individual respondents and organisations is to ensure that
survey questions are clearly worded and understood (Kalliath and Brough 2008).

The current research

The current research builds upon Kalliath and Brough’s (2008) theoretical definition of
work –life balance and is also informed by the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory of
stress (Hobfoll 1989), which emphasises an individual’s drive to create, conserve and
protect the quality of their resources. The COR theory is relevant to our conceptualisation
of work – life balance in respect of three processes involving perceptions of resource gain
or loss. First, work– life balance is a resource in the sense that at any given time
individuals are able to assess how much of this resource they possess. Second, the
assessment of this work– life balance resource is subjective, and cannot necessarily be
verified through external observation (e.g. perceptions of co-workers or supervisors).
Third, people can gain or lose this resource, and the nature of their work environment (e.g.
inflexible work schedules) could be an influential factor in ‘resource gain’ or ‘resource
loss’. Drawing on these theoretical arguments, we therefore define work – life balance as
an individual’s subjective appraisal of the accord between his/her work and non-work
activities and life more generally.
In consideration of these observations, we present the development and detailed
validation of a new work– life balance measure, tested in large multiple independent
samples and over multiple time points. We report results from three independent
investigations, grouped here into two research studies for convenience. Study 1 describes
the development of the work– life balance measure and thoroughly tests its psychometric
structure, with the goal of demonstrating the reliable replication of this measure within
four independent samples. Specifically, the aim of Study 1 is that the work – life balance
 6 P. Brough et al.

measure will demonstrate acceptable psychometric characteristics (specifically, good fit,

reliability and validity) within four independent samples.

Study 1
Method
Participants
Self-report questionnaire data were collected from four independent samples of workers
employed in two countries and constituting three separate investigations (N ¼ 6983).
Investigation 1 involved researchers from two countries who administered the same
questionnaire to a local sample of employees; specifically, Australia 1 (n ¼ 5094) and New
Zealand (n ¼ 718; total N ¼ 5812). Research participants were purposefully recruited from
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

a heterogeneous sample of industries, including public service, health, education, finance,

manufacturing and non-government organisations. Specifically, 13 Australian organisations
and 3 New Zealand organisations responded to invitations to participate with this research.
Research sample recruitment purposefully included a wide selection of industries to enhance
the ability of this research to be based on nationally representative samples of Australian and
New Zealand workers. Investigations 2 and 3 consisted of two different research
investigations, and the responses to only one measure (work–life balance) from these two
investigations, are included here. Investigation 2 consisted solely of respondents from one
Australian state education union (Australia 2; N ¼ 704), the majority of which were teachers
(n ¼ 607; 86%). Investigation 3 consisted solely of respondents from one Australian state
police service (Australia 3; N ¼ 467), the majority of which were police officers (n ¼ 378;
85%). Investigations 2 and 3 were included here for two reasons: first, to provide as large as
sample as possible for the validation of this new work–life balance measure. Second, to
demonstrate the new measure is valid both in occupational samples reporting work–life
balance difficulties due to high workloads and/or performing shift work (e.g. Brough and
Biggs 2010; Timms and Brough 2013) and in a large, heterogeneous sample of white-collar
workers (Investigation 1). Response rates varied across the samples, ranging from 25% to
45%. Responses were higher from organisations who posted surveys to named employees;
lower responses were received from organisations who distributed an anonymous mass mail-
out of the survey. Response rates were also influenced by some initial technical problems
with the electronic survey link for the Australia 1 sample. Table 1 describes the demographic
characteristics of the four Study 1 samples of respondents. Details of marital status,
dependents and education qualifications were not collected for the Australian 3 sample, due
to the different priorities of this specific research investigation.

Procedure
Questionnaires were posted through each organisation’s internal mail system to the
research participants and returned via reply-paid post directly to the researchers at their
respective local institutions. Research ethical approvals from each university and from
some specific organisational research ethics committees (e.g. the police service) were
granted for each research investigation.

Measures
Work – life balance scale development. A measure of work– life balance was developed by
the investigators from a detailed review of the literature and from two exploratory
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 7

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the four Study 1 research samples.

Australia 1 New Zealand Australia 2 Australia 3

Variable Metric % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
N 5094 718 704 467
Gender Female: 67% (3413) 68% (488) 75% (528) 16% (75)
Male: 33% (1681) 30% (215)a 25% (176) 84% (392)
Age Range (years): 18 – 71 19 – 74 20 – 60 28 – 68
M (years): 41 41 42 46
SD: 10 11 5 7
Tenure Range (years): 0.5– 50 0.5 – 43 0.5 –50 4 – 43
M (years): 9 7 4 23
SD: 9 8 9 8
Work hours Range (hours): 2 –90 2 – 90 2 – 75 2 – 80
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

per week M (hours): 40 41 44 45

SD: 12 11 13 11
Marital status Married: 54% (2751) 72% (517) 79% (556) –
Divorced/single: 46% (2343) 23% (165) 20% (141)
Dependentsb Range: 0 –7 0–6 0–4 –
None: 28% (1426) 58% (416) 22% (155)
$1: 64% (3260) 42% (302) 78% (549)
Education Degree: 34% (1732) 44% (316) 69% (486) –
Post-graduate: 23% (1172) 12% (86) 15% (106)
Note: – signifies data not collected.
a
n ¼ 15 (2%) data missing for New Zealand gender;
b
dependent children, relatives or any other individuals.

(qualitative) studies. Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with 81 workers

in two countries: Australia (n ¼ 40) and New Zealand (n ¼ 41), to assess their perceptions
and conceptions of work –life balance and to generate scale items (Brough, O’Driscoll and
Biggs 2009). Nineteen potential scale items were developed from the qualitative
component. The researchers reviewed the face validity of the items for workers (i.e.
consideration was given to developing a short list of items that could be understood easily
by workers at all levels), and in consideration of our definition of work – life balance. Items
that were overly esoteric or complicated were deleted, resulting in four items pertaining to
work –life balance.
The respondents were asked to respond to the items by reflecting on their work and
non-work activities (i.e. regular activities outside of work such as family, friends, sports
and study) over the past few months. The four items were: (1) ‘I currently have a good
balance between the time I spend at work and the time I have available for non-work
activities’, (2) ‘I have difficulty balancing my work and non-work activities’
(negatively worded item), (3) ‘I feel that the balance between my work demands and
non-work activities is currently about right’ and (4) ‘Overall, I believe that my work
and non-work life are balanced’. Respondents indicated their agreement on a five-point
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). High scores represent
perceptions of high balance. The work –life balance measure is presented in full in the
Appendix.
Demographic questions of gender, marital status, work hours, tenure and educational
qualifications were also included in the survey. Respondents were asked to indicate
whether they currently had responsibilities for dependent children, relatives or any other
individuals.
 8 P. Brough et al.

Data analysis
The four-item work –life balance measure was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) in each of the four samples. Preparation of the data sets for structural equation
modelling (SEM) included the deletion of cases missing at least half of the item responses
from each individual measure within SPSS Version 22 (e.g. Brough, O’Driscoll and
Kalliath 2005). This resulted in the deletion of n ¼ 154 cases from the Australia 1 data,
n ¼ 19 cases from the New Zealand data, n ¼ 0 cases from the Australia 2 data and n ¼ 1
case from the Australia 3 data. Missing values analysis employing expectation-
maximisation (EM) was conducted (in SPSS) on each data set to facilitate analysis with
SEM using Amos (Arbuckle 2006). Hu and Bentler’s (1998) recommended two-index
presentation strategy for the reporting of goodness-of-fit statistics was adopted (i.e. the
inclusion of the x 2 statistic and other alternative fit indices). Seven alternative fit statistics,
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

plus the x 2 statistic, are reported to overcome any effects of sample size, misspecifications
or other violations of assumptions represented by each individual fit statistic.

Results
Structure of the work – life balance measure
The CFA results are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. The fit indices indicate that the
measure has a good fit overall. The GFI, TLI and CFI estimates exceeded or were equal to
0.97. The PCFI estimates were low (0.33), as were the SRMR estimates (# 0.03). The
RMSEA estimates ranged from 0.02 to 0.07, indicative of a good fit, although not all of the

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the work –life balance measure.

Data samples n x2 df x 2/df SRMR GFI TLI CFI PCFI RMSEA
Australia 1 5094 81.14* 2 40.57 0.01 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.33 0.07
New Zealand 718 21.23* 2 10.61 0.03 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.33 0.07
Australia 2 704 8.32* 2 4.16 0.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.33 0.02
Australia 3 467 14.31* 2 7.16 0.01 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.33 0.06
*p , 0.001.

.81, .90, .84, .83

e1 Item 1
.90, .79, 92, .91
.54, .14, .60, .55
e2 Item 2 .74, .38, .77, .74

Work-Life
.88, .86, .89, .89 .94, .93, .94, .94
e3 Balance
Item 3

.89, .63, .88, .92

e4 Item 4 .94, .96, .94, .96

Figure 1. CFA standardised estimates of the work– life balance measure.

Note. Values to the left of the observed variables represent squared multiple correlations (R 2).
Values to the right of the observed variables represent standardised factor loadings (b). Four sample
results presented in order: Australia 1 (n ¼ 5094), New Zealand (n ¼ 718), Australia 2 (n ¼ 704)
and Australia 3 (n ¼ 467).
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 9

normed x 2 results (x 2/df) met the recommended threshold levels. Figure 1 illustrates that
the four work – life balance items accounted for acceptable proportions of variance (square
multiple correlations [R 2] greater than 0.30). The internal reliability estimates
(Cronbach’s alpha) for the work– life balance measure for each sample were also
acceptable, ranging from 0.84 to 0.94 (Table 3).

Discussion
The analyses validated the four-item work– life balance measure in four independent
samples from two countries. The unidimensional factor structure of the work – life balance
measure was replicated in each sample, producing adequate and comparable fit statistics.
Each of the four work –life balance items accounted for acceptable levels of variance in
the latent construct, and the measure produced high levels of internal reliability within all
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

four samples. The work – life balance measure also produced acceptable goodness-of-fit in
four independent samples. The psychometric structure of this new measure was thus found
to be acceptable, thereby supporting the research aim. The large sample sizes and four
independent samples provided a thorough test of the psychometric characteristics of this
work – life balance measure, with the testing comparing favourably with recent
descriptions of other work– life balance measures (Valcour 2007; Carlson et al. 2009;
Fisher et al. 2009; Matthews et al. 2010). Therefore, further analysis to test the validity of
the work – life balance measure (Study 2) was deemed worthwhile.

Study 2
Study 2 tested the criterion-related validity of the work– life balance measure with a
recognised antecedent variable (work demands) and four recognised outcome variables
(job satisfaction, family satisfaction, psychological strain and turnover intentions; e.g. Eby
et al. 2005; Brough et al. 2007). Study 2 consisted of both cross-sectional and longitudinal
analyses to compare our results with published (mostly cross-sectional) findings and to test
the hypothesised research associations over time – a point that is still repeatedly requested
(e.g. Brough and O’Driscoll 2010; de Jonge, van Vegchel, Shimazu, Schaufeli and
Dormann 2010). Study 2 tested two specific research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (cross-sectional): Work – life balance will exhibit significant negative
cross-sectional relationships with work demands,
turnover intentions and psychological strain, and
significant positive cross-sectional relationships with
job satisfaction and family satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2 (longitudinal): The work – life balance measure will demonstrate
significant negative relationships over time with turnover
intentions and psychological strain, and significant
positive relationships over time with job satisfaction and
family satisfaction.

Method
Participants
Study 2 consisted of two Study 1 samples: Australia 1 (N ¼ 5094) and New Zealand
(N ¼ 718). Due to organisational attrition approximately half of the Australia 1
participants (n ¼ 2500) were also administered the Time 1 questionnaire for a second time
 Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

10
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the Study 1 and Study 2 research variables.
Study 1 Study 2
Turnover inten-

P. Brough et al.
Work– life balance Work demands Family satisfaction Job satisfaction tions Strain
Sample M SD a M SD a M SD a M SD a M SD a M SD a
Australia 1 (n ¼ 5094) 3.35 2.46 0.93 3.62 1.02 0.89 5.86 2.16 0.95 3.91 1.03 0.83 2.25 1.60 0.85 0.97 0.49 0.88
New Zealand (n ¼ 718) 3.51 2.74 0.84 3.65 1.01 0.88 5.69 2.19 0.96 3.92 0.98 0.80 2.34 1.80 0.84 0.91 0.61 0.82
Australia 2 (n ¼ 704) 2.58 2.30 0.94
Australia 3 (n ¼ 467) 3.39 2.15 0.94
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 11

after 12 months (see discussion under Research Limitations). Thirty-two percent

(N ¼ 823) of the sampled Time 2 respondents could be matched as providing responses to
both Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires. Questionnaire matching was conducted using a
self-generated password, noted on each questionnaire by each respondent. Study 2,
therefore, tested both the cross-sectional and the longitudinal relationships between seven
research variables with this matched subsample. No significant differences in the research
variables were noted between those respondents who completed both Time 1 and Time 2
surveys and those respondents who completed Time 1 surveys only.

Measures
Work demands. Boyar, Carr, Mosley and Carson’s (2007) five-item measure of work
demands was included. A sample item is: ‘My work demands a lot from me’. Respondents
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

indicated their agreement with each item on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). High scores represent high work demands. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients were assessed with the two Investigation 1 samples (Table 4) and produced
coefficients of 0.89 (Australia 1) and 0.88 (New Zealand).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed with the three-item instrument from the
Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire (Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis and
Cammann 1982). A sample item is: ‘All in all I am satisfied with my job’. Responses were
recorded on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A high
score indicates high job satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were assessed with the
two Investigation 1 samples (Table 4) and produced coefficients of 0.83 (Australia 1) and
0.80 (New Zealand).
Family satisfaction. Family satisfaction was assessed with three items from Edwards
and Rothbard’s (1999) instrument. A sample item is: ‘In general, I am satisfied with my
family/home life’. Responses were recorded on a seven-point scale from 1 (strongly
agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). High scores indicate high family satisfaction. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients were assessed with the two Investigation 1 samples (Table 4) and
produced coefficients of 0.95 (Australia 1) and 0.96 (New Zealand).
Turnover intentions. The three-item turnover intentions measure described by Brough
and Frame (2004) was included as a criterion variable. A sample item is: ‘How often do
you actively look for jobs outside your organization?’ Items were measured on a
frequency scale from 1 (never) to 5 (a great deal). High scores indicate high turnover
intentions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were assessed with the two Investigation 1
samples (Table 4) and produced coefficients of 0.85 (Australia 1) and 0.84 (New
Zealand).
Psychological strain. The eight-item version (Kalliath, O’Driscoll and Brough 2004)
of the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg 1972) was utilised as a composite measure
of psychological strain. Items were prefaced with the stem: ‘Have you recently
experienced the following in the past few weeks . . . ’ and an example item is: ‘been feeling
unhappy or depressed?’ Responses were recorded on a frequency scale from 0 (more so
than usual) to 3 (much less than usual). High scores represent high levels of strain.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were assessed with the two Investigation 1 samples
(Table 3) and produced coefficients of 0.88 (Australia 1) and 0.82 (New Zealand).

Data analysis
The longitudinal analysis utilised data matched to the same Australia 1 respondents at
Time 1 and Time 2; unmatched cases were deleted. The longitudinal SEM controlled for
 Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

12
Table 4. Bivariate associations of the research variables (N ¼ 823).
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 Gender
2 Marital status 0.11**
3 Dependents 2 0.04 0.25**
4 Work hours 2 0.21*** 2 0.02 2 0.15
5 Demands (T1) 0.03 0.10** 0.01 0.46***

P. Brough et al.
6 WLB (T1) 0.04 0.06 2 0.13 2 0.37*** 2 0.50***
7 Family satisfaction (T1) 0.12*** 0.08* 2 0.10 2 0.11** 2 0.05 0.30***
8 Job satisfaction (T1) 0.16*** 0.11*** 2 0.14 2 0.05 2 0.07* 0.29*** 0.18***
9 Turnover (T1) 2 0.11** 2 0.18*** 0.13 0.07* 0.12*** 2 0.22*** 2 0.10** 2 0.58***
10 Strain (T1) 2 0.05 2 0.12*** 0.27*** 0.10** 0.15*** 2 0.37*** 2 0.40*** 2 0.44*** 0.36***
11 Family satisfaction (T2) 0.12*** 0.05 2 0.07 2 0.12*** 2 0.08* 0.20*** 0.59*** 0.15*** 2 0.09** 2 0.29***
12 Job satisfaction (T2) 0.11** 0.08** 2 0.21* 2 0.03 2 0.13*** 0.28*** 0.16*** 0.54*** 2 0.37*** 2 0.28*** 0.18***
13 Turnover (T2) 2 0.09** 2 0.20*** 0.10 0.13*** 0.16*** 2 0.26*** 2 0.14*** 2 0.37*** 0.53*** 0.25*** 2 0.12*** 2 0.56***
14 Strain (T2) 2 0.01 2 0.11** 0.29*** 0.10** 0.14*** 2 0.27*** 2 0.23*** 2 0.24*** 0.18*** 0.41*** 2 0.36*** 2 0.44*** 0.37***

Note: All tests are two-tailed. T1 ¼ Time 1, T2 ¼ Time 2, WLB ¼ work– life balance. *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 13

each Time 1 variable via correlated residuals with their respective Time 2 variable
residuals.

Results
Scale descriptives and correlations
Scale descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard deviations) and bivariate
associations for the research variables are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Bivariate
associations were calculated to assess whether the work– life balance measure was
associated with the research variables in the expected directions. For brevity, bivariate
results only from the longitudinal sample are reported in Table 4. The work – life balance
measure demonstrated significant relationships with the Time 1 and Time 2 variables in
the expected directions; there were significant negative relationships with work demands,
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

turnover intentions and psychological strain, and significant positive relationships with
family satisfaction and job satisfaction.

SEM cross-sectional analyses

The criterion-related validity of the work– life balance measure was first tested in a cross-
sectional structural model, via SEM (Hypothesis 1). The model assessed the extent to
which the simultaneous testing of pathways replicated the bivariate associations between
the research variables, and a summary of these results is presented in Table 5 and Figure 2.
The majority of associations between work –life balance and the latent variables were
statistically significant and in the expected directions. It can be observed that job demands
were negatively associated with work – life balance (b ¼ 2 0.46; p , 0.001). Work – life
balance produced significant positive associations with both job satisfaction and family
satisfaction, and significant negative associations with psychological strain and two of the
four estimates of turnover intentions, offering support for Hypothesis 1. The goodness-of-
fit statistics (Table 5) indicate that the SEM model accounted for a good fit to the data and
acceptable proportions of variance (SRMR).

SEM longitudinal analyses

To provide an additional test of the criterion-related validity of the work– life balance
measure, and to assess causal relationships, the ability of work– life balance to predict the
criterion variables over time (Hypothesis 2) was assessed in a SEM model with the
Australia 1 longitudinal data. No cross-sectional paths between the criterion variables
were included in this model, to estimate variance produced only by the longitudinal
associations. The results are depicted in Figure 3 and the goodness-of-fit statistics are
presented in row 3 of Table 5. The work – life balance (Time 1) measure was significantly

Table 5. Cross-sectional and longitudinal SEM goodness-of-fit statistics.

Sample N x2 df x 2/df GFI TLI CFI PCFI SRMR RMSEA

Cross-sectional results
1. Australia 1 5094 3345.86* 266 12.58 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.86 0.03 0.05
2. New Zealand 718 633.58* 266 2.39 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.86 0.06 0.04
Longitudinal results
3. Australia 1 823 3309.27 793 4.17 0.83 0.89 0.90 0.83 0.16 0.06
*p , 0.001.
 14 P. Brough et al.

Family –.28, –.27

Satisfaction
Psychological
.26, .25 Strain
–.20, –.13
–.38, –.42 .12, .09*
Job –.46, –.31
WLB .–06, –.05NS
Demands
Turnover
Intentions
.30, .26
Job
–.62, –.60
Satisfaction
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

Figure 2. Cross-sectional SEM of work– life balance.

Note: Values represent standardised regression weights. Two sample results presented in order:
Australia 1 (n ¼ 5094) and New Zealand (n ¼ 718). All loadings significant at p , 0.001, except for
*p , 0.05 and NS ¼ non-significant. WLB ¼ work– life balance.

Family
Satisfaction
(T2) Psychological
.03NS Strain
(T2)
–.18

Job –.48 WLB –.18

Demands (T1)
(T1) Turnover
Intentions
.19 (T2)
Job
Satisfaction
(T2)

Figure 3. Longitudinal SEM of work – life balance (N ¼ 823).

Note: Values represent standardised regression weights. All loadings significant at p , 0.001, except
for NS ¼ non-significant. WLB ¼ work– life balance. T1 ¼ Time 1, T2 ¼ Time 2.

predictive of three of the four Time 2 criterion variables: job satisfaction, turnover
intentions and psychological strain. The path between work – life balance and family
satisfaction was not significant. The fit results were acceptable, although weaker in
strength as compared to the cross-sectional results, supporting Hypothesis 2.

Discussion
The work –life balance measure demonstrated adequate levels of criterion-related validity
in both the bivariate and multivariate analyses, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. These
analyses demonstrated that the work – life balance measure had significant associations in
the expected directions with a recognised antecedent of work –family balance (i.e. work
demands) and four recognised criterion variables (i.e. psychological strain, turnover
intentions, family satisfaction and job satisfaction). The work– life balance measure also
demonstrated predictive validity over time for three of the four criterion variables within
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15

the longitudinal analyses, offering support to previous observations describing strain,

turnover intentions and satisfaction as the key consequences of work –life balance (Allen
et al. 2000; Brough and O’Driscoll 2005; O’Driscoll et al. 2011). The validity of this
work –life balance measure was therefore substantiated. The testing of longitudinal
relationships within a large sample is noteworthy and supports documented causal
relationships between work – life balance and key health, satisfaction and job turnover
variables (e.g. Brough et al. 2009).

General discussion
Work – life balance
This research described the development and comprehensive testing of a concise measure of
work –life balance. The measure was found to be psychometrically sound over time and in
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

multiple samples and produced expected associations with key antecedent (job demands)
and criterion variables (family satisfaction, job satisfaction, psychological strain and
turnover intentions). Therefore, the structural integrity and predictive ability of the new
work –life balance measure was considered satisfactory. Further, the new measure of
work –life balance demonstrated significant associations in the hypothesised directions with
a selection of work-based variables (e.g. work demands and job satisfaction), home-based
variables (e.g. family satisfaction) and context-free variables (e.g. psychological strain).
A topical discussion within the work – life balance literature is the use of appropriate
terminology. Since the mid-1970s, the term ‘work – family’ has been employed to describe
the multiple demands of these two domains (e.g. Cooper and Marshall 1976). In this sense,
‘family’ was considered to largely encompass all non-work activities and also reflect the
high levels of demand generated specifically by dependents (i.e. young children), for
which ‘balance’ was sought. In response to issues such as the backlash against ‘work –
family’ employment policies by employees without dependent responsibilities (e.g.
Hegtvedt, Clay-Warner and Ferrigno 2002), a number of alternative terms have been
employed, including ‘job and off-job’ (O’Driscoll, Ilgen and Hildreth 1992), ‘work and
non-work’ (Burke 1998) and ‘work – life’ (Hilbrecht, Shaw, Johnson and Andrey 2008).
Although each term has specific appeal, the term ‘work –life balance’ is commonly
adopted by organisations and is widely cited within the human resources literature (Haar,
Bardoel and De Cieri 2008; Timms, Brough, O’Driscoll, Siu and Kalliath, in press).
In view of the widespread reference to work– life balance by industry and workers
(Haar et al. 2008; O’Driscoll et al. 2011), it is important to have a measure available that
reflects the essential characteristics of this construct. In our opinion, the essential
characteristics of work –life balance describe how employees successfully obtain joint
commitments to their work and non-work roles according to their own perceptions of role
salience, irrespective of their proportions of time and involvement physically spent in
these roles; this successful subjective commitment, therefore, constitutes ‘work-life
balance’. We, therefore, concur with previous discussions of work– life balance which
similarly described it as an ‘evenhanded alertness’ (Marks and MacDermid 1996, p. 421),
encompassing all life domains of ‘work, play, and love’ (Kofodimos 1993, p. xiii), and
measured ‘as a matter of degree’ (Greenhaus et al. 2003, p. 513) on its own continuum.
We concur that this concept of work –life balance is distinct from work – family linking
mechanisms such as role conflict or role enhancement which have been more commonly
explored. We also argued above that an important element of work –life balance is an
individual’s subjective perception of balance. Our use of the term ‘work –life balance’ is
intended to encompass the broad range of non-work demands and activities that
 16 P. Brough et al.

employees experience, and that are included within work– life balance organisational
policies (e.g. personal relationships and health, family responsibilities, volunteer work,
sporting commitments, study, religion and travel commitments). Our results offer support
for the adoption of the simple work –life balance terminology, and acknowledge its wide
appeal to both researchers and organisations.
The current research also illustrated the importance of widening the scope of the
testing of organisational behaviour theories related to employee health and well-being.
Repeated validation of theories and/or measures in small, cross-sectional, culturally
comparable samples is a significant limitation to theory building and knowledge
advancement. Researchers are increasingly recognising the value of producing
theoretically sound results with broad and diverse samples (e.g. Allen et al. 2013;
Brough et al. 2013). Calls for theory testing with samples residing in regions other than the
USA and Europe have, for example, recently increased, in an attempt to address previous
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

limitations and to widen the support for key organisational behaviour theories and
measures (Tsui et al. 2007; Gelfand et al. 2008; Cadogan 2010; Brough et al. 2013; Siu
et al., in press). In response, the current research directly addressed these calls by including
multiple non-US and non-European research samples.

Research limitations
The level of respondent attrition within the longitudinal data collection was high, resulting
in a smaller than anticipated matched Time 1– Time 2 data set (N ¼ 823). This attrition
was particularly unfortunate considering that specific steps had been included to avoid
such an occurrence, namely the provision of detailed organisational Time 1 feedback
reports and individualised Time 1 feedback reports to all interested participants. One
potential reason for the high attrition was the timing of this study, which coincided with
the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. Some of the participating organisations had
been dissolved at Time 2, or they had merged with other organisations. Thus, our research
participant sample pool was reduced by approximately 50% for the Time 2 survey
administration. Specifically, at Time 1 the Australia 1 respondents totalled N ¼ 5094
sampled from 14 organisations; but of these Time 1 respondents only 2500 participants
sampled from eight organisations were available to receive a Time 2 survey. Further,
against a backdrop of job losses and the question of their financial survival, the willingness
of the surviving organisations to engage in a second round of questionnaire
administrations focused on work –life balance noticeably declined, which resulted in
reduced assistance with internal organisational survey promotion exercises. The reduction
in priority of human resources initiatives for organisations during times of economic stress
has been previously documented (e.g. Cooper 2009), and typically results in lean data
collection periods for researchers. We note that the causal relationships between work –
life balance and the key antecedents and criterion variables reported by this research do
support previous observations (e.g. Eby et al. 2005; Siu et al. 2010) and, therefore, do not
appear to be unduly influenced by this response rate.
A second research limitation to be considered is any potential clustering of the data.
The data could be clustered in a number of ways including by sample, country,
organisation, employment level, work role, and by various demographic groupings (single,
dependents, age, income, etc.). We acknowledge that further testing of this measure should
consider any impact of data clustering and any inflation of Type I estimates (Cohen,
Cohen, West and Aiken 2003). The consideration of the extent to which multiple samples
are required to be similar to each other is a highly pertinent point. Some researchers have
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17

argued, for example, that differences between sample groups are beneficial in
demonstrating the validity of theoretical frameworks across heterogeneous respondents
(e.g. Spector et al. 2007; Brough et al. 2013), which was the approach adopted here.
Researchers have also identified how the value of providing multiple sample research
comparisons exceeds any concerns rising from the use of convenience samples which may
not be complete random samples (e.g. Straus 2009).
A final research limitation is our use of the EM method of missing values analysis.
Although EM is useful when conducting preliminary statistical analyses in SPSS (i.e.
correlations, Cronbach’s alpha test, etc.), we acknowledge that the EM method does not
produce standard errors. The use of alterative methods of missing values analysis, most
noticeably the full information maximum likelihood (FIML), when conducting SEM has
been noted to be preferable by some authors (e.g. Graham 2009; Schlomer, Bauman and
Card 2010), although any differences in results when using FIML compared to EM are
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

typically noted to be small (Allison 2003). We do, therefore, acknowledge that a test of our
results employing the FIML method and/or estimating bootstrapping confidence intervals
would also be valuable.

Conclusions
This research presents a new short and valid measure of work – life balance, suitable for
inclusion in subsequent investigations. The unidimensional structure of the balance
measure was demonstrated in four independent samples (N ¼ 6983), and its criterion-
related validity was established. Specifically, work demands were found to be a significant
antecedent of work – life balance, while job satisfaction, family satisfaction, psychological
strain and turnover intentions were each significant outcomes of work – life balance. These
results were replicated within longitudinal analyses (excepting family satisfaction). The
research thus demonstrated that the items asking directly about ‘work –life balance’ had an
acceptable level of face validity for the respondents. Overall, this research contributes to
the work – life interface literature by validating a concise work –life balance instrument
with robust psychometric properties.

Funding
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant scheme
(DP0770109).

References
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S., and Sutton, M. (2000), ‘Consequences Associated With
Work-to-Family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research,’ Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 5, 278– 308.
Allen, T.D., Lapierre, L.M., Spector, P.E., Poelmans, S.A.Y., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J.I., Cooper,
C.L., Walvoord, A.G., Antoniou, A.S., Brough, P., Geurts, S., Kinnunen, U., Pagon, M., Shima,
S., and Woo, J.M. (2013), ‘The Link Between National Paid Leave Policy and Work-Family
Conflict Among Married Working Parents,’ Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63,
1 – 29.
Allison, P.D. (2003), ‘Missing Data Techniques for Structural Equation Modeling,’ Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545– 557.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2006), AMOS 7.0 User’s Guide, Chicago, IL: SmallWalters Corporation.
Boyar, S.L., Carr, J.C., Mosley, D.C., and Carson, C.M. (2007), ‘The Development and Validation of
Scores on Perceived Work and Family Demand Scales,’ Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67, 100–115.
 18 P. Brough et al.

Boyar, S.L., Maertz, C.P., Jr., Pearson, A.W., and Keough, S. (2003), ‘Work-Family Conflict: A
Model Of Linkages Between Work And Family Domain Variables And Turnover Intentions,’
Journal of Managerial Issues, 5, 175– 190.
Brough, P., and Biggs, A. (2010), ‘Occupational Stress in Police and Prison Staff,’ in The Cambridge
Handbook of Forensic Psychology, eds. J. Brown and E. Campbell, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 707– 718.
Brough, P., and Frame, R. (2004), ‘Predicting Police Job Satisfaction, Work Well-being and
Turnover Intentions: The Role of Social Support and Police Organizational Variables,’ New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 8 –16.
Brough, P., Holt, J., Bauld, R., Biggs, A., and Ryan, C. (2008), ‘The Ability of Work-Life Balance
Policies to Influence Key Social/Organisational Issues,’ Asian-Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 46, 261– 274.
Brough, P., and O’Driscoll, M. (2005), ‘Work-Family Conflict and Stress,’ in Research Companion
to Organizational Health Psychology, eds. A. Antoniou and C. Cooper, Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar, pp. 346– 365.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

Brough, P., and O’Driscoll, M. (2010), ‘Organizational Interventions for Balancing Work and Home
Demands: An Overview,’ FV & Stress, 24, 280– 297.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M.P., and Biggs, A. (2009), ‘Parental Leave and Work-Family Balance
Among Employed Parents Following Childbirth: An Exploratory Investigation in Australia and
New Zealand,’ Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 4, 71 – 87.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., and Kalliath, T. (2005), ‘Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the CCS,’
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 53 – 61.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., and Kalliath, T. (2007), ‘Work– Family Conflict and Facilitation,’
in Advances in Organizational Psychology, eds. I. Glendon, B. Myors and B. Thompson,
Sydney: Australian Academic Press, pp. 73 –92.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Cooper, C.L., and Poelmans, S. (2009), Workplace
Psychological Health: Current Research and Practice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brough, P., Timms, C., Siu, O.L., Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Sit, C., Lo, D., and Lu, C.Q. (2013),
‘Longitudinal Application of the Job Demands-Resources Model to Psychological Strain and
Engagement in Cross-National Samples,’ Human Relations, 66, 1311– 1335.
Burke, R.J. (1998), ‘Work and Non-Work Stressors and Well-Being Among Police Officers: The
Role of Coping,’ Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 11, 345– 362.
Burke, R.J., and Cooper, C.L. (2008), The Long Work Hours Culture: Causes, Consequences and
Choices, Bingley: Emerald.
Cadogan, J. (2010), ‘Comparative, Cross-Cultural, and Cross-National Research. A Comment on
Good and Bad Practice,’ International Marketing Review, 27, 601– 605.
Carlson, D.S., Grzywacz, J.G., and Zivnuska, S. (2009), ‘Is Work Family Balance More Than
Conflict and Enrichment?’ Human Relations, 62, 1459– 1486.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K., and Williams, L. (2000), ‘Construction and Initial Validation of a Multi-
Dimensional Measure of Work/Family Conflict,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, C.L. (2009), ‘Editorial: Stress and the Global Recession,’ Stress and Health, 25, 127.
Cooper, C.L., and Marshall, J. (1976), ‘Occupational Sources of Stress: A Review of the Literature
Relating to Coronary Heart Disease and Mental Ill-health,’ Journal of Occupational Psychology,
49, 11 – 28.
de Jonge, J., van Vegchel, N., Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W., and Dormann, C. (2010), ‘A Longitudinal
Test of the Demand-Control Model Using Specific Job Demands and Specific Job Control,’
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 125– 133.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., and Brinley, A. (2005), ‘Work and Family
Research in IO/OB: Content Analysis and Review of the Literature (1980-2002),’ Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66, 124– 197.
Edwards, J., and Rothbard, N. (1999), ‘Work and Family Stress and Well-being: And Examination of
Person-Environment Fit in the Work and Family Domains,’ Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 77, 85 – 129.
Fisher, G.G., Bulger, C.A., and Smith, C.S. (2009), ‘Beyond Work and Family: A Measure of Work/
Nonwork Interference and Enhancement,’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14,
441– 456.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19

Frone, M. (2003), ‘Work-Family Balance,’ in Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, eds.

J.C. Quick and L.E. Tetrick, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,
pp. 143– 162.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M., and Cooper, M.L. (1992), ‘Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family
Conflict: Testing a Model of the Work-Family Interface,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
65 – 78.
Gatrell, C.J., Burnett, S.B., Cooper, C.L., and Sparrow, P. (2013), ‘Work-Life Balance and
Parenthood: A Comparative Review of Definitions Equity and Enrichment,’ International
Journal of Management Review, 15, 300– 316.
Gelfand, M., Leslie, L.M., and Fehr, R. (2008), ‘To Prosper, Organizational Psychology Should
Adopt a Global Perspective,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 493– 517.
Goldberg, D.P. (1972), The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Graham, J.W. (2009), ‘Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World,’ Annual Review
of Psychology, 60, 549– 576.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

Greenglass, E.R. (2000), ‘Work, Family and Psychological Functioning: Conflict or Synergy?’ in
Coping, Health and Organizations, eds. P. Dewe, M.P. Leiter and T. Cox, London: Taylor &
Francis, pp. 87 – 108.
Greenhaus, J.H., and Allen, T.D. (2011), ‘Work-Family Balance: A Review and Extension of the
Literature,’ in Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (2nd ed.), eds. J.C. Quick and L.E.
Tetrick, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 165– 183.
Greenhaus, J., and Beutell, N. (1985), ‘Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles,’
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76 – 88.
Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M., and Shaw, J.D. (2003), ‘The Relation Between Work-Family
Balance and Quality of Life,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510– 531.
Greenhaus, J.H., and Parasuraman, S. (2002), ‘The Allocation of Time to Work and Family Roles,’
in Gender, Work Stress and Health, eds. D.L. Nelson and R.J. Burke, Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, pp. 115– 128.
Grzywacz, J.G., and Bass, B.L. (2003), ‘Work, Family and Mental Health: Testing Different Models
of Work-Family Fit,’ Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 248– 261.
Haar, J., Bardoel, A., and De Cieri, H. (2008), ‘Work-Life in Australasia,’ Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 46, 258– 260.
Hanson, G.C., Hammer, L.B., and Colton, C.L. (2006), ‘Development and Validation of a
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Work-Family Positive Spillover,’ Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 249– 265.
Hegtvedt, K.A., Clay-Warner, J., and Ferrigno, E.D. (2002), ‘Reactions to Injustice: Factors
Affecting Workers’ Resentment Toward Family-Friendly Policies,’ Social Psychology
Quarterly, 65, 386– 400.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S.M., Johnson, L.C., and Andrey, J. (2008), ‘“I’m Home for the Kids”:
Contradictory Implications for Work-Life Balance of Teleworking Mothers,’ Gender, Work and
Organization, 15, 454– 476.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), ‘Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress,’
American Psychologist, 44, 513– 524.
Hu, L., and Bentler, P.M. (1998), ‘Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modelling: Sensitivity to
Underparameterized Model Misspecification,’ Psychological Methods, 3, 424– 453.
Kalliath, T., and Brough, P. (2008), ‘Work-Life Balance: A Review of the Meaning of the Balance
Construct,’ Journal of Management and Organization, 14, 323– 327.
Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., and Brough, P. (2004), ‘Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the General
Health Questionnaire-12,’ Stress and Health, 20, 11 – 20.
Kelloway, E.K., Gottlieb, B.H., and Barham, L. (1999), ‘The Source, Nature, and Direction of Work
and Family Conflict: A Longitudinal Investigation,’ Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 4, 337– 346.
Kofodimos, J. (1993), Balancing Act, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Major, V.S., Klein, K.J., and Ehrhart, M.G. (2002), ‘Work Time, Work Interference With Family,
and Psychological Distress,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427– 436.
Marks, S.R., and MacDermid, S.M. (1996), ‘Multiple Roles and the Self: A Theory of Role Balance,’
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 417– 432.
 20 P. Brough et al.

Matthews, R.A., Kath, L.M., and Barnes-Farrell, J.L. (2010), ‘A Short, Valid, Predictive Measure of
Work-Family Conflict: Item Selection and Scale Validation,’ Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 75 – 90.
Noor, N.M. (2004), ‘Work-Family Conflict, Work- and Family-Role Salience, and Women’s Well-
being,’ The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 389– 405.
Odle-Dusseau, H.N., Britt, T.W., and Greene-Shortridge, T.M. (2012), ‘Organizational Work-
Family Resources as Predictors of Job Performance and Attitudes: The Process of Work-Family
Conflict and Enrichment,’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 28 – 40.
O’Driscoll, M., Brough, P., and Biggs, A. (2007), ‘Work-Family Balance: Concepts, Implications
and Interventions,’ in Occupational Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research,
Education and Practice, eds. J. Houdmont and S. McIntyre, Nottingham: Nottingham
University, pp. 193– 217.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Brough, P., and Haar, J. (2011), ‘The Work-Family Nexus and Small-Medium
Enterprises: Implications for Worker Well-Being,’ in Occupational Health and Safety for Small
and Medium Sized Enterprises, eds. E.K. Kelloway and C.L. Cooper, Cheltenham: Edward
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

Elgar, pp. 106– 128.

O’Driscoll, M., Ilgen, D., and Hildreth, K. (1992), ‘Time Devoted to Job and Off-Job Activities,
Inter-Role Conflict and Experiences,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272– 279.
Ratanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., and Tement, S. (2013), ‘Patterns of Conflict and Enrichment
in Work-Family Balance: A Three-Dimensional Typology,’ Work & Stress, 27, 141– 163.
Schlomer, G.L., Bauman, S., and Card, N.A. (2010), ‘Best Practices for Missing Data Management
in Counseling Psychology,’ Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1 – 10.
Seashore, S., Lawler, E., Mirvis, P., and Cammann, C. (1982), Observing and Measuring
Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice, New York: Wiley.
Siu, O.L., Bakker, A.B., Brough, P., Lu, J.Q., Wang, H., O’Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Lu, J.F., and
Timms, C. (in press), ‘A Three-Wave Study of Antecedents of Work-Family Enrichment: The
Roles of Social Resources and Affect,’ Stress and Health.
Siu, O.L., Lu, J.F., Brough, P., Lu, C.-Q., Bakker, A.B., Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Chen, W.Q., Lo,
D., Sit, C., and Shi, K. (2010), ‘Role Resources and Work-Family Enrichment: The Role of
Work Engagement,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 470 –480.
Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S., Lapierre, L.M., Cooper, C.L., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J.I.,
Abarca, N., Alexandrova, M., Beham, B., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Lu, C.-Q., Lu, L.,
Moreno-Velazques, I., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Salamtov, V., Shima, S., Simoni, A.S., Siu, O.L.,
and Widerszal-Bazyl, M. (2007), ‘Cross-National Differences in Relationships of Work
Demands, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions With Work-Family Conflict,’ Personnel
Psychology, 60, 805– 835.
Stephens, M.A.P., Townsend, A.L., Martire, L.M., and Druley, J.A. (2001), ‘Balancing Parent Care
With Other Roles: Interrole Conflict of Adult Daughter Caregivers,’ Journal of Gerontology,
56B, 24 –34.
Straus, M.A. (2009), ‘The National Context Effect: An Empirical Test of the Validity of Cross-
National Research Using Unrepresentative Samples,’ Cross-Cultural Research, 43, 183– 205.
Timms, C., and Brough, P. (2013), ‘“I Like Being a Teacher”: Career Satisfaction, the Work
Environment and Psychological Health,’ Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 768–789.
Timms, C., Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., Siu, O.L., and Kalliath, T. (in press), ‘Flexible Work
Arrangements, Work Engagement, Turnover Intentions and Psychological Health,’ Asian
Pacific Journal of Human Resources.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S., and Ou, A.Y. (2007), ‘Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational
Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations,’ Journal of Management, 33,
426– 478.
Valcour, M. (2007), ‘Work-Based Resources as Moderators of the Relationship Between Work
Hours and Satisfaction With Work-Family Balance,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1512– 1523.
Voydanoff, P. (2005), ‘The Effects of Community Demands, Resources, and Strategies on the
Nature and Consequences of the Work-Family Interface,’ Family Relations, 54, 585– 595.
Wayne, J., Grzywacz, J.W., Carlson, D.S., and Kacmar, K.M. (2007), ‘Work Family Facilitation:
A Theoretical Explanation and Model of Primary Antecedents and Consequences,’ Human
Resource Management Review, 17, 63 – 76.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21

Appendix: Work –life balance measure

When I reflect over my work and non-work activities (your regular activities outside of work such as
family, friends, sports, study, etc.), over the past three months, I conclude that:

Strongly Strongly
Items disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree
1. I currently have a good 1 2 3 4 5
balance between the time I spend
at work and the time I
have available for non-work activities.
2. I have difficulty balancing my 1 2 3 4 5
work and non-work activities.
3. I feel that the balance 1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 17:36 02 April 2014

between my work demands and non-work

activities is currently about right.
4. Overall, I believe that my 1 2 3 4 5
work and non-work life are balanced.
Note: Item 2 is reverse scored.

View publication stats